As Democrats wake up to a huge wave of Republican victories, especially in the U.S. House of Representatives, we can be certain of one thing: without the massive turnout of Latinos who broke heavily for Democrats in key races, the disaster would have been even more severe.
Case in point, Latinos turned out big for Sen. Harry Reid breaking almost 90 percent in his favor. Bottom line - they supported a candidate who was a champion on immigration reform and jobs, and punished Sharron Angle who attacked immigrant s and demonized Latinos over and over again. Several lessons can be drawn from last night's results:
Lesson 1: Latinos are clear on who their friends are. Beginning with the introduction of proposition 187 in California, up until today, the struggle for immigration reform has had one clear outcome: it has deeply politicized a generation of Latinos in the U.S. Every year, the number of Latino voters rise, and we get ever more politically sophisticated. We know who our friends are. People like Sens. Bennet and Reid were rewarded for their early and vocal support of immigration issues.
Jerry Brown solidly trounced corporate executive Meg Whitman who spent a record $140 million dollars of her own money in a brazen attempt to buy the California Governor's mansion. Voters not only rejected her corporate views, Latinos flatly delivered a knockout punch to her anti-immigrant messaging.
Lesson 2: The electorate is not anti-immigrant. It is anti-recession. Wins by Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky happened in states with unemployment higher than the national average. In Colorado and Delaware, however, unemployment is less than the national average. The results speak for themselves. White voters were turning out not to reward anti-immigrants, but to throw out the people they perceived as responsible for propping up companies like AIG and Bank of America. Change the unemployment rate and watch the fire go out of the tea party as if you'd tossed a bucket of water on it.
Even more telling for immigration issues, are California and Nevada. These states have some of the highest unemployment in the country. They should have been places the incumbents would have been out of work by the times the polls closed yesterday. Without Angle's suicidal run at the Latino community in Nevada, without Meg Whitman throwing her nanny under the bus in California, that is exactly what would have occured. But in both instances, the sophisticated electorate of Latino voters was watching, and they responded.
Lesson 3: Winning the Presidency is going to be almost impossible without Latinos and immigrants. New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois and Texas all have huge numbers of Latino and immigrant voters. Add to that, states like Colorado and Nevada, with their now proven track record of Latino involvement and you have a lead that is almost insurmountable, assuming you take the right position.
This poses challenges to both parties. The challenge for the Republican Party is obvious. For years, they have been locked into an unresolved internal debate. The politics of right now (let's bash immigrants in specific localities) vs the politics of the next 20 years (let's change our stance towards immigrants and Latinos and win back the Bush vote margins). If they want a real chance at gaining the White House, they will have to modify their stance, and that means modifying the legislation the new speaker brings forth, and how they choose to portray their party on issues important to Latinos. Without this shift, they can forget about 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next 20 years.
The challenge for Democrats is less obvious, but no less imperative. Voters turn out for two reasons. There are people they want to punish, and people they want to reward. Republicans did a good job of providing the negative reinforcement needed to get Latinos out in some crucial states, but they may not be that dumb in 2012. And Democrats meanwhile, have done precious little to provide the positive reinforcement needed to turn out the Latino vote in the odd case that Republicans see the light and tone down their rhetoric. If Democrats want to continue counting on the Latino vote, it would behoove them to be proactive about it, and in poll after poll there is only one way to do this - pass immigration reform.
This will not be easy for either party. Republicans will have people like Rep. Steve King of Iowa calling for the deportation of anyone with a Z in their name. And Democrats will be terrified that taking a proactive stance on immigration will cost them the seats they have left in the House. But one thing is clear after this last election, Latinos have come into our own politically, and we don't plan to turn back.
Follow Gabe Gonzalez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/communitychange
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
ABOUT THE IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER
The Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003, is the policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policymakers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers, and the media. IPC is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office. Visit our website at www.immigrationpolicy.org and our blog at www.immigrationimpact.com.
I have calculated the vote share in the 18 battleground states. These are Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia. Most likely the battleground states in 2008 are the same as 2012 and onward.
According to the best source, the U.S Census, in 2008 only 4.7% of voters in 18 battleground states were Hispanic. In comparison 81% where non-Hispanic white. 12% were African American, and 1% Asian."
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/05/hispanic-voters-are-few-compared-to.html
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The influence of minority voters has decreased tremendously as the number of battleground states dwindles. For example, in 1976, 73% of blacks lived in battleground states. In 2004, that proportion fell to 17%.
The National Latino Congreso endorses a national popular vote for president.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
WRONG!
Gore won the popular vote and what did that get him?
2000 Elections: Popular Vote: Gore = 50999897 (48.38%) Bush = 50456002 (47.87%)
The one who receives the most electoral votes gets the Presidency.
"Hispanics are less likely to vote than other groups, even if citizen. In the 2008 election, only 7.4% of voters were Hispanic."
" not all Hispanic voters support amnesty. Of Hispanic voters, 37% of Hispanics supported deporting illegal immigrants rather than fining them and than giving them a pathway to citizenship. So the pro-immigration Hispanics vote in 2008 was only 5.4% of the total vote.
The national popular vote is not what counts. The Hispanic vote is concentrated in a few large, non-competitive states such as California, Texas, New York and Illinois."
"The white anti-illegal immigration block alone constituted 52% of battleground state voters in 2008.. This is not taking into account another 8 percentage points of minority (hispanic, black, asian) anti-illegal immigration voters. Even this little group is much larger than the Hispanic vote...
Again, the white anti-illegal immigration vote is 17 times larger than the Hispanic pro-amnesty vote. Which voting group would a rational politician aim for to win, the 3% block or the 52% block?"
Time for a little Salsa Music !
Super majorities of non-OWP did not.
That will be the political landscape for the next 10 years.
Those OWP were the boomers who came of age in the lefty counter culture of the 60's and 70's
and they have come home to roost in the reactionary right
Proving that most of those young Americans in the 60's and 70's were just in it for the ~drug$ and $ex”
Latinos need to learn that illegals cause more harm to their efforts than any other group in America. Legal Resident Latinos did the right thing. The vast majority of Americans support legal immigration, most Americans are the product of legal immigrants. And it's not just limited to Latinos. Asians and Eastern Europeans are as much of a problem as illegal Latinos. Work to enforce the immigration laws for everyone's benefit. I don't care who you are, illegal immigration damages America, and Latinos take it too personally. You are Americans now if you are legally here. Fight for the rights of all Americans and work for legal immigration and stand against illegal immigration.